Debates of March 10th, 2005

Point of Order

[John Reynolds, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that those of us on this side, and in true parliamentary fashion, accept the member's apology for those very inappropriate remarks.

[The Speaker]

I thank hon. members for their interventions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, as amended.

Supply

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it extremely rarely in the past 12 years have I risen in this House and been totally proud to speak on a motion or bill, at least with this sort of intensity.

I am particularly proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois, for, since 1994, that is, since our very first deliberations in the House of Commons, it has always been a concern of the Bloc Québécois to combat organized crime. We were motivated to combat this organized crime particularly in view of the weaknesses that could be found in the Canadian Criminal Code.

The intensity, conviction and passion that we have devoted to this have been such that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have brought about two radical reforms of the Criminal Code, particularly on the anti-gang provisions concerning organized crime. And there were other provisions concerning threats and intimidation that were prompted by the Bloc Québécois. Also the whole debate surrounding the ease with which drug traffickers in particular could launder money using $1,000 bills.

On this subject I would like to salute my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who, upon being made aware of this issue in 1997, tabled a bill to eliminate these $1,000 bills, which facilitated the transport of dirty money and the laundering of it.

I would like to thank my party, its leader, and all my colleagues, for all the work that has been done since 1994 to even more effectively combat organized crime. In particular, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, an outstanding young lawyer who is deeply concerned to build lasting society based on law, justice and social justice. He has been primarily responsible for the production of a volume on the Shoah and on our capacity to all recall the Jewish genocide every year.

I was pleased when my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asked me to support this motion which he has tabled on reversal of the burden of proof. I was pleased and honoured as well that he should think of me. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie had the same idea of urging me to support the motion of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I am proud to have supported this motion on the reversal of proof, because I have believed in it for many years.

In spite of myself, for sure—as you know, it was not my career plan or my choice either—I have had to change my political path a little over the last few years. A few years ago, my family and I were the victims of death threats from organized crime and drug traffickers in the greater Saint-Hyacinthe area.

Why were we threatened? Because in 1997 I had started denouncing the criminals in the Hell's Angels south chapter, who were squatting on farm land, planting thousands of cannabis plants, threatening farm families and terrorizing them too. I had taken up the cause of the rural world, and of freedom too, because that is what it was really all about.

One cannot be a descendant of sons of freedom, for example, desire the emancipation of Quebec and still agree to close one's eyes to the fact that hundreds of farm families are imprisoned by threats from organized crime, no longer masters in their own homes and no longer able to enjoy the tranquility, peace and serenity of their own land. I decided at that point to take a stand for the freedom of some, which means a lack of freedom of others.

This confrontation with organized crime was just a matter of circumstance. But, given the seriousness of the threats, I decided that instead of keeping quiet in the face of organized crime, I would be more outspoken than ever in order not to leave an inch of land to these criminals, who, through terrorism, subject people daily to omertà , that is, the law of silence.

We created a public info-crime committee in my region, whose main objective is to promote a very simple tool—a telephone number—people can call to report crimes of any kind anonymously and completely confidentially. I co-founded this committee a few years ago with the late Raymonde Rivard, who at that time chaired the school board in my region. She too was fed up with organized crime, which was poisoning her children, as she put it.

We decided to take things in hand with the citizens committee. We would bring organized crime out of the woods and off the land in our region. If that is done in all regions, at some point these people will not have anywhere to go, except to greenhouses where the electricity meters go 200 miles an hour and where it is easier to find them and send them to jail.

The events of last week, that is, the simultaneous murder of four police officers, should also open our eyes to the fact that these people with links to organized crime, to the biggest gangster groups like the Hell's Angels, for example, the Nomads in particular, are not luxury gardeners. It is not humdrum. It is not something that can just be alone. These people are criminals.

What they grow in our fields they exchange for cocaine, heroine, ecstasy or date rape drugs. They poison our children right from primary school. Quebec has just published the most extensive study ever done on first experiences with all sorts of drugs. The study found that, unlike three or four years ago, children are starting at age nine to have their first experience using drugs.

If there were no supply, there would be no demand for these drugs. If there were no supply, there would be no dealers wandering around elementary and secondary schools selling this junk to our children, who can end up in a vicious circle.

We know through experience that even if a community takes charge and locks people up there are still flaws in the Criminal Code and in the way sentencing is handled. I repeat, these are not deluxe gardeners or very nice people. They are criminals, who poison our children and kill people just to monopolize the drug market.

We saw this during the biker wars. There were 160 deaths, including an innocent child in Hochelaga. He died in a bombing by a rival gang of the Rock Machine. We have noticed that although well equipped, there are still flaws in terms of sentencing and the degree of wealth of these criminals when they get out of prison.

We have noticed a problem with sentencing. A Hells Angels henchman in my region was incarcerated a few years ago for controlling the squatters who were keeping an eye on the land and threatening the farmers. This man spent a few months in prison. He came out just as rich as when he went in. His sentence did not make up for the damage he caused to society and to our children or the quality of life he took away from the farmers when he terrorized them.

This is one of the problems that could be resolved with the new bill on decriminalization that includes much harsher sentences for major producers.

Then there are the proceeds of crime. We have seen with Opération printemps 2001—this was in March 2001—how difficult it was to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the assets belonging to a criminal were the proceeds of criminal activities.

It costs the Crown, the country, that is all the taxpayers, millions and millions of dollars and takes an awful lot of time just to establish a direct link between, for example, a half a million dollar house, three Harley-Davidson, one Mercedes and somebody's criminal activities.

For that kind of evidence, the obvious is not enough. When somebody with no known job or on welfare is accused of being a drug dealer linked to the Hells Angels for instance and owns a 350 000 $ house, two Harley-Davidsons, three Mercedes and one country house in Charlevoix, it is too obvious to be true. We have to complicate things a little. We need a very comprehensive file.

A Crown counsel was telling me that a year of work and tons of files were needed to establish proof as regards proceeds of under 500 000 $, and we still cannot recuperate half of what we should be getting back.

There are blatant cases at this time. I will mention only two, where things do not make a lot of sense . Normand Robitaille is number 2 with the Nomads, the Hells Angels' deadliest group, and is “Mom” Boucher's right arm. He was arrested during opération printemps 2001, more specifically in March 2001. His assets have been estimated at $1 million and that only part of part was seizable based on the evidence, if it was shown beyond any doubt that this part of Mr. Robitaille's assets had been acquired through criminal activities.

Since March 2001, we have been trying to find evidence concerning an amount less than $1 million. We have not finished yet. We have not yet gathered all the documents necessary to seize part of the assets valued at $1 million belonging to the number 2 of the Nomads, a component of the Hells Angels. We are talking about $1 million and that man did not have a known job. He managed to amass assets worth $1 million, and he did not have a job. He had a numbered company, which never produced a thing. That man, today, has cost us maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to establish evidence that his assets in the amount of $1 million were acquired through legal, licit means, even though he does not have known employment and he has no income. It does not make sense. This has been going on since March 2001 and it concerns but a small part of the million dollars.

I might add that the drug trade in Canada, which is controlled to a large extent by the Hells Angels Nomads, represents $10 billion a year. I talked to a journalist with La Presse , Mr. Cédilot, who told me that in 14 months, that is to say the 14 months leading up to opération printemps 2001, $110 million linked to the drug trade had entered the coffers of the Nomads alone.

We are pleased to say that, in Quebec, over a period of nine years, for example, we were able, through this very complex and expensive procedure, to recover $32 million in assets from organized crime. This amount represents less than $4 million a year. We can be proud of that. We certainly hold the record compared to the other Canadian provinces. However, $32 million is less than $4 million a year over a period of nine years, and we know that the drug trade generates $10 billion a year. Consequently, organized crime has recovered $90 billion over 10 years, and we cannot brag about seized $32 million in assets from it. This does not make sense. There are flaws somewhere: $90 billion in drugs, our children are being poisoned, 160 people have been killed in the biker gang war to capture the drug market. There are questions to be asked about this, because $32 million is a drop in the bucket.

Let me give you a second well known case. This is probably the most dreadful criminal whom I have ever met. Maurice “Mom” Boucher is responsible for the murder of two prison guards, for conspiring to commit a murder, for gangsterism and for drug trafficking. This man has been in jail for two years. He went in with an arrogant smile, perhaps thinking that he would get out more quickly.

He has been in prison for two years. He appealed the charges against him for the murder of the prison guards. It has been two years, and the process to compile evidence regarding several millions worth of seizable assets belonging to Mr. Boucher has not even begun yet. Seasoned observers in the justice community tell us that building up the evidence could take years and years and cost millions and millions of dollars.

Yet, Maurice “Mom” Boucher himself is almost a numbered company. He was supposedly a used car dealer in downtown Montreal even though he never sold a car in his life. This man has a superb residence on Montreal's South Shore, a magnificent piece of property. He also own Harley-Davidson motorcycles, of which he is very proud, as any member of a criminal biker gang would be. Bikers who are not criminals are also proud of their Harley-Davidson motorcycles but in his case, let us say that it has a slightly different connotation. He owns properties everywhere.

As I was saying, he was leader of the Nomads. In 14 months, before opération printemps 2001, they made $110 million from drug trafficking. It will take us years and millions of dollars to build up the evidence and maybe seize part of the assets obtained using the proceeds of criminal activities.

Currently, the most common practice is that if, for example, a criminal was arrested last year and had his trial this year and if there were changes in his assets during that year, a judge will decide that it is those assets that will be seized. We do not even look at the last 10 or 15 years during which this criminal amassed a fortune and deposited money in a lot of different places, probably in secret bank accounts. We no longer look at that because it takes too much time and too much taxpayers' money to prove that assets have been obtained through criminal activity.

It is time to put an end to this. I must again pay tribute to my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a talented young lawyer. I pay tribute because it is my opinion that his motion forces the government to take action. Using the concept of the balance of probabilities in the reversal of proof, and totally in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are going to have criminals who are charged with offences, Maurice “Mom” Boucher, Normand Robitaille and the like, have just one responsibility: to prove that their assets, their half-million-dollar homes, their Harleys and Mercedes, their yachts, their property holdings, were acquired through legal activities. It will be up to them to prove it, and not the taxpayers. They will have to prove that they have, for at least part of their lives, been involved in legal activities and have not been life-long criminals.

On the other hand, if they have been life-long criminals and cannot prove that their assets were legally acquired, all their possessions can be seized. It will not be a matter of proving this without a shadow of a doubt. This concept would not be applied in cases where criminals have already been sentenced for serious offences, “Mom” Boucher or Normand Robitaille, for instance.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank two journalists who have helped me a great deal over the years, since my background is economics. They have guided me through the legal process. André Cédilot, whom I have already mentioned, who helped flesh out of the reversal of proof aspect. The information I received from a lawyer with the experience of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles meshed extremely well with the explanations of a seasoned observer like André Cédilot.

I would also like to express my thanks to Michel Auger, with whom I discussed a lot. He helped me understand how organized crime works, in order to be in a better position to fight it.

Finally, a motion like this could lead, with the unanimity of the House, to a bill that will include this reversal of proof. In my opinion, this is an important step in increasing the efficiency of our battle against organized crime. I do, however, hope that some of the proceeds of the disposal of criminal's belongings will again go to the law enforcement agencies to enable them to keep up what they are doing.

And that some will also go to the victims of these criminals, to help them get through their ordeal and any after-effects.

I am speaking for myself and for those who are involved. I would like it if some could be directed to Info-Crime committees. Because every time Info-Crime committees have been created in our regions and Crime Stoppers in Ontario, miracles have been achieved, not only through police work, but also because of citizen involvement.

Once again, hurray for my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and hurray for the other members who are going to support this initiative.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his remarks. First, it is a subject he knows very well because he has been fighting organized crime for a long time. Also, he was instrumental in founding Info-Crime, which he mentioned at the end of his speech. It was due to his initiative in the Saint-Hyacinthe region that I followed suit in Joliette. And now we have our own Info-crime committee.

I am wondering why the government members seem to be preparing to vote in favour of this motion. Once this motion has been adopted and later a bill introduced to reverse the burden of proof, would it not be consistent to review the decision that was made by the RCMP, and approved by the Minister of Public Safety, to close nine RCMP detachments? I know that my colleague is as aware as I am of the squatters who grow cannabis in farmers' fields. The farmers are often terrorized and do not dare turn them in. Would it not be logical, after the vote on this motion and the introduction of a bill, for the decision to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec to be reversed?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. Indeed, I would like to pay tribute to him, for when we first talked about Info-crime and the possibility of setting up Info-crime committees all over Quebec, he was the first to launch an initiative in his riding. Since then, the Joliette Info-crime committee has been one of the most active in Quebec in terms of combating organized crime.

He has of course put his finger on something that is fundamental. When I was talking about luxury gardeners earlier, in reference to grow operators linked to the Hells Angels, that is not my own expression. I should have explained where it comes from. It comes from Commissioner Bourduas of the RCMP, who is responsible for Quebec and Eastern Canada. He was telling us that it was not the RCMP's role to hunt down luxury gardeners, as he called them. I hope he will reconsider his understanding of the situation. The Hells Angels, like the other criminal groups involved in the production and trafficking of narcotics, are not luxury gardeners. We saw a sad example of this in the west last week, with the murder of four RCMP officers. I take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families and friends bereaved by this quadruple murder.

We must get back to basic necessities. When police forces are not on the ground closely tracking the networks, the establishment of networks and their connections with international networks, they cannot do their work properly. We had an example of this with the events of September 11 in the United States. The Senate committee looked into what the government should have done but did not do, what the police should have done but did not do, what the CIA should have done but did not do. It has become clear that the CIA did exactly what the RCMP is doing right now, which is to remove the police officers on the ground who were in the habit of doing surveillance, of getting to know the local networks and their international connections. They put them in central offices in New York and Washington and told them: “Now do the same work you did before”. There was nobody on the ground.

Now the RCMP is making the same mistake. This happened in Ontario, and now the RCMP is no longer in Northern Ontario. The distances are far too great. When there are 300 km to go in order to answer a call or tail people, it is not an effective way to start an investigation. We will therefore continue our fight to keep the nine detachments open and the RCMP continuing to do its outstanding job, together with the Sûreté du Québec, in order to fight organized crime better. Closing a detachment is giving organized crime another opportunity. It is they who benefit most from this decision.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his remarks. He too, I imagine, is very concerned about the children, given all the battles he has waged over cannabis in his region. A tip of the hat for all the work done. We must continue, never stop. This has become a serious problem in Quebec.

The techniques that organized crime uses in my region to produce cannabis have become very sophisticated. They even grow it on trees. Luckily, a plantation of this kind was found very near where I live, through the use of a helicopter. There was an incredible amount of cannabis. This fight must continue.

That being said, I am very happy that the RCMP detachment in my area has not been closed because it is a regional capital and it would have been pretty counter-productive to do this.

Insofar as the burden of proof is concerned, it is obvious that if you are in organized crime and make some purchases, some acquisitions, you would not be crazy enough to put them in your own name. Doing this, the investigations that we have to do now—because the burden of proof does not exist—cost a fortune because we have to go to the source, to the basis. But if they had to provide proof, things would move along much more quickly. It should not be up to us to pay for the investigations but up to them to provide complete, incontrovertible proof that something was honestly acquired.

I would like to hear my colleague speak to this. What does he think? Does he think that the investigations would be done much more quickly? Does he also think that, if there is no proof that a certain house or boat or car was purchased legally or honestly, it should be seized immediately to ensure that these people will no longer enjoy the proceeds of organized crime?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Obviously, this will make things much easier. In fact, now, the Crown has to produce evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused acquired some of his assets as the result of criminal activities.

When we talk about the “balance of probabilities”, we are looking at the bare facts. The accused will have to explain to Revenue Canada, for example, or Revenue Québec or the Ministry of Finance of Ontario—since the problem of marijuana growers and drug traffickers is in Ontario too because the Hells Angels are in Ontario—how he acquired $25,000 or $30,000 in earnings over the past five years, a home worth half a million dollars, a country house worth $250,000 and two Mercedes, three Harley-Davidsons and so on, and how his wife, who has no known employment, has acquired assets of almost equal value. He will have to provide clear proof.

The balance of probabilities means that, considering all the probabilities, including the lifestyle and employment of the accused, the following question remains: is it possible for a normal person—with the exception of a lottery winner, which is easily verified—to own so much. At that point, things will proceed quickly. In fact, the process will be a bit more normal than it is now with the notion of “beyond all reasonable doubt”, because the Crown is under the obligation to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of pages, incredible amounts of research, and public funds are used to better serve the criminals once again.

Furthermore, it is scandalous that, during the megatrial following the police operation in the spring of 2001, some judge somewhere decided, with all due respect, to increase legal aid fees for the Hells Angels Nomad chapter to $125 per hour for its defence. This is a complete outrage. I hope this will not happen in the future.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms viable reverse onus of proof in the proceeds of crime cases.

Currently, the Criminal Code does allow for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime allows the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, upon application by the Crown, and after a conviction for a designated offence. Once culpability has been proven, the Crown must show on a balance of probabilities that the property is the proceeds of crime and that the property is connected to the crime.

If no connection between the offence for which the offender was convicted and the property is established, the judge may order the forfeiture of the property if he or she is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is proceeds of crime.

Although these provisions have been in force for quite some time and have in fact been successful to a significant degree, we need to work towards ensuring that criminals, especially those primarily motivated by financial benefit, do not profit from their ill-gotten gains.

Committing crime for financial benefit is the hallmark of organized crime. Whether these crimes involve drugs, prostitution, fraud or whatever, organized crime is fuelled by greed.

It is the proceeds of this criminal activity which allow organized criminals to commit further crime, recruit further members and facilitate generally the criminal operation of these groups. Organized crime demands specific, focussed and sustained responses.

We as a Liberal government have taken significant steps over the past few years in the fight against organized crime, first with Bill C-95, in 1997, and, most recently, in 2001, with Bill C-24.

Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002, included a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences and tough sentencing and parole eligibility provisions.

These amendments also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

This clearly demonstrates that this Liberal government is committed to combating organized crime.

These and other tools found in the Criminal Code are being used by law enforcement and prosecutors in the fight against organized crime.

Despite significant legislative activity in this area recently, we need to evaluate whether prosecutors have all the necessary tools to advance on this front, as organized crime groups are now becoming increasingly sophisticated, complex and adaptive in their criminal ventures.

Clearly, this assessment should examine whether a reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases would contribute to the disruption of criminal organizations. In my view it would.

As this matter advances, it is important to have the views of the provinces on this issue. In many cases, their prosecutors are the ones bringing the proceeds of crime applications, given their authority to prosecute most Criminal Code offences.

As a government, we have taken a step in the right direction. In January 2005, federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice discussed proposals to change the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus for the proceeds of crime regime.

According to joint news release issued, and I quote:

All Ministers agreed that the ability to obtain the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is needed and the federal justice minister said he intends to move forward as quickly as possible with changes that meet charter requirements.

The federal-provincial-territorial forum is useful in gauging provincial support on issues such as these. Based on the outcome from this meeting, it appears there is general support for the need to advance a reverse onus provision that is within the parameters of the Charter.

The requirement that any advancement in this area be viable from a charter perspective is a very important one. A balance must be struck in crafting a reverse onus scheme which represents a useful tool for prosecutors, over and above what is now available under our current proceeds of crime scheme, while doing so within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

This is a very important consideration as charter viability will ensure that our prosecutors will have this tool, and that it will be effective to take away criminal profits for years to come.

This motion is directed at ensuring that criminals are not permitted to financially or materially benefit from the commission of criminal offences. It is one which is targeted at fighting crime in the most effective way—by taking the profit out of it.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the remarks of my colleague from the Montreal area. As I did earlier with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I would like to ask him what his thoughts are about the consistency of government action in the fight against organized crime.

Following the adoption of this motion and the introduction of a bill—he has indicated that the federal justice minister had already announced his intention—I wonder if the member would agree that, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot suggested, the consistent thing to do would be to also keep the nine RCMP detachments in Quebec open. I know that the Quebec Liberal caucus has spoken out against their closure. I would like to hear him on that.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. In fact, he has answer it in part when he said that the Liberal caucus had spoken out against their closure. I too have spoken out against the closure of the RCMP detachments, and the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has been very active on this file.

As far as I and the members of the caucus are concerned, we would rather a different decision had been made.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on an issue about which I readily admit I am not an expert, even though, like any law-abiding citizen of course, I abhor having to do with organized crime in its various forms. We know that not only criminal organizations are a threat to public safety and security but they cause social dislocation and disrupt the cohesiveness of a society like that of Quebec.

I also want to think the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He was described earlier as not only an outstanding lawyer but also a very active parliamentarian. I would like to remind this House that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was behind another decision made by this Parliament, a simple decision but one that had to be followed through nonetheless.

We will recall that he was the one who proposed that $1,000 bills be taken out of circulation, because it is well known that organized crime, the mafia, makes extensive use of cash and that large denominations made it relatively easy for such mafia and criminal networks to move significant amounts of money.

Now, with the disappearance of these bills following the initiative by our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the criminal gangs have a harder time moving and laundering all this cash, since the largest bank note available from the Bank of Canada is $100. I have seen that more and more, all over, people are refusing $100 bills.

As a result, it is not surprising to see the motion presented today by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I shall read it, so that our listeners know what motion we are debating:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden o fproof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

Here we see something I think is extremely important. First there is the fact that, obviously, we are proposing a new measure to give additional tools to the forces of order and the courts to fight crime, namely reversing the burden of proof regarding the proceeds of criminal activities.

Obviously, in order to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will be a number of provisions, and I will speak of them later. However, I think it is just as important to point out that in his motion, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refers to a date: May 31, 2005. It ensures that the intentions of the Minister of Justice, which have been repeated a number of times, will become reality.

I remind the House that on many issues—and I know I am off topic a little—the Liberals have assured us there will be changes. For example, the Prime Minister of Canada, in front of the entire television audience, millions of men and women—I am sure the hon. member for Chambly remembers this well—announced that he was going to make changes in the employment insurance eligibility threshold. Well, June 28 was a long time ago. We have had an opportunity, with the budget, to see this government's response to its promise, and there has still been no substantial change in the eligibility threshold. As a result, we are continue to wait for a promise that was made in 2000.

It is important, in terms of this motion, to focus on this deadline, which will ensure the tabling of a bill, instead of waiting as we do in so many cases, “Solution to follow. We are considering it. Wait and see”. Earlier, during question period, I heard the Minister of the Environment say, “Wait, in a few weeks we will have the Kyoto action plan”. I know I digress, but I cannot resist the urge to talk about the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who announced the tabling of new foreign policy directions for December. We are March and we still do not have any news about the deadlines.

The reference to April 30, 2005, in the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is extremely important.

I was saying that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles had taken extremely important legislative initiatives to combat organized crime. I talked about the $1,000 bills he stopped from circulating. I also think that Bill C-242, which he tabled on October 28, 2004, was the forerunner of this motion and the debate we are having today. In a way, this bill forced the Minister of Justice to assume his responsibilities.

The purpose of Bill C-242 was to reverse the burden of proof, which we are discussing today, and would require the accused, once found guilty of criminal activity, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were acquired honestly and legitimately.

I am talking about October 28, 2004. We are now March 2005, so there is consistency in the approach by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. This falls in line with the work the Bloc Québécois has been doing for many years to make sure that not only the Criminal Code, but the entire machinery of government is able to fight this scourge that is organized crime and the mafia networks.

The initiatives by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—and I am talking for instance about Bill C-242—have received support from members of all parties. I know that Bill C-242 received strong support from the NDP and the Conservative Party. Today, I am pleased to hear that the government side is preparing to support this motion.

This motion is the result of initiatives by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and also of many years of work by the Bloc Québécois to give the government and the Criminal Code the means to fight organized crime.

I very clearly recall running for the first time as a Bloc candidate in Joliette in 2000. Back then, the Bloc Québécois, during and after the election campaign, was extremely virulent about organized crime. The Liberals took this issue rather lightly.

I remember, early in the election campaign, a senseless murder in southern Lanaudière. The only political party candidates with enough courage to take to the streets with the people and condemn such criminal acts causing the death of a completely innocent bystander were members of the Bloc Québécois. I was extremely proud, as a political newcomer, to be associated with a party that was not afraid to speak out against organized crime.

I know that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did so too as an individual and he has paid the price in many ways, in terms of his own safety and that of his family. This is the stuff the 54 members of the Bloc Québécois are made of. I could say that this is the stuff the 75 Bloc MPs—the number in 2000 and in the last election—are made of, meaning that they will promote the interests of the public and their constituents, even if, unfortunately, it means paying a price that, as in the case of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, was perhaps higher in some cases than in others. However, we are happy that his life is no longer in danger.

If the reversal of the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime were added to the Criminal Code, it seems to me that we would be in a position to reassure our fellow citizens, society in general, that they will have less need of to resort to action like the marches of the year 2000 to protest the unsafe conditions they were living in.

I see you telling me I have one minute left. I was told I had 20 minutes to speak. I have never seen 20 minutes go by so fast in my entire life.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thought you and the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord had 10 minutes each.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was told I had 20 minutes. I believe that the two other 10-minute speeches were to come a little later on.

This year is the 100th birthday of Einstein's theory of relativity, so I was wondering whether I was the first human being to experience the effects of that scientific phenomenon.

As I was saying, I was very proud to be part of that group in 2000. Our efforts during the election campaign brought the battle against organized crime to the forefront of the campaign issues. Because of all the other things that were going on, like Shawinagate and the sponsorship scandal, we did not have as much success with the organized crime issue. . As a result, at our request, and with pressure from the public as well, from public opinion as a whole, the government introduced Bill C-24, which amended the provisions of the Criminal Code. It was passed on June 13, 2001, with our support. We had after all indirectly instigated it. It came into effect on February 1, 2002.

Thanks to this bill, amendments to the Criminal Code have given law enforcement additional tools, for example, on the issue of the proceeds of crime. So there have been many more indictable offences that have been covered by the amendments to the Criminal Code.

Previously, only 40 crimes were categorized as organized crime offences. With the new provisions, we will be talking more about designated offences, which will encompass the indictable offences covered by the Labour Code and other federal statutes, apart from a few exceptions established by regulation.

So the broadening of the application of the provisions of the Labour Code to the proceeds of crime now enables law enforcement to seize, block and confiscate the profits that can be derived from possible criminal activity and are connected to and facilitated by organized crime.

Of course this was an important step forward, but we must go further still. That is why we are proposing in this motion another provision which should be added to the Criminal Code to address organized crime specifically. This is true in Quebec as well as, unfortunately, all over the world. So it is time for the Parliament of Canada to acquire this additional tool of reversal of the burden of proof with respect to the proceeds of crime, plus the introduction of the notion of the balance of probabilities.

As was mentioned by the previous hon. member, there was a federal-provincial-territorial meeting last January 23 and 25, at which the justice ministers discussed an amendment to the Criminal Code. There might be reason to make a minor correction to what the Liberal member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said about certain provisions proposed by the Quebec justice minister and not by the federal justice minister, who subsequently endorsed them—I will not get into this—which were intended to reverse the burden of proof.

This proposal of the Quebec justice minister Mr. Jacques Dupuis was endorsed by all the provincial justice ministers as well as the federal minister. At the conclusion of discussions on this proposal, the ministers supported it, considering that it was necessary to facilitate confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The federal justice minister then said that it was necessary to improve the confiscation rules and that he would quickly produce amendments that were in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had been mentioned by the previous Liberal member. Therefore, in my view, including this cut-off date of May 31, 2005 in the motion will assure us that the Minister of Justice will take action on what he said in late January.

It may be important to point out also that this proposal stems both from a suggestion made by Quebec's justice minister and from Bill C-242 introduced last October by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is interesting to read the following about the Bloc's position on the issue of reversing the burden of proof in the February 5, 2005, edition of Le Devoir , a newspaper read by few people in English Canada unfortunately:

—The Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose reversing the burden of proof, with its Bill C-242 introduced in the Commons last fall, has adopted the idea. “This is a proposal that the Bloc likes,” confirmed Richard Marceau, the party's justice critic. We will have to wait and see which offences will be listed in this new bill, which, according to Mr. Marceau, should be introduced in the spring by federal justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Indeed, as everyone knows, May 31, 2005 falls within that timeframe, springtime.

At present, subsection 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code places on the crown prosecutor the burden of proving that the property to be forfeited is proceeds of crime related to the offence committed. This means that the Crown has a double task: first, get the accused convicted, and second, prove that the property in the possession of this person was illegally acquired. Then, of course, steps have to be taken to obtain its forfeiture.

Thus, we see that, with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof, we will greatly facilitate the task of the Crown who, once there is no longer any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, will throw back on the accused the onus of demonstrating that they did not obtain the property or the assets with illegal money.

I would like to get back to the initiative of Quebec's justice minister by reading what he wrote in the major Quebec newspapers at the beginning of February. It would be important for people who are listening to take note of this. Concerning subsection 462.37(1), Mr. Dupuis, who is the justice minister and attorney general of Quebec, came to this conclusion:

If the proposed amendment is enacted, an accused who is convicted of an indictable offence will be required to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the property in respect of which the Attorney General is seeing forfeiture is not proceeds of crime related to the offence of which the accused has been convicted. Our proposed amendment goes further than the amendment in Bill C-242 recently tabled in the House of Commons in that it applies to all indictable offences, not only criminal organization offences.

Here, the proposal of the Quebec justice minister goes even further than what we have in Bill C-242. The federal justice minister is obviously free to go further than what we have proposed. We will obviously see the proposed provisions after studying the bill, which will be introduced before next May 31.

However, in the case of the Quebec justice minister, he proposes not just crimes related to gangs or organized crime but all criminal acts. He continues:

Despite the expertise Québec has developed and our success in offence-related property forfeiture (since 1996, property worth a total of $32 million has been forfeited)—

That is not chicken-feed, but everyone will agree that it is not very much in comparison with the proceeds of crime.

—it remains difficult to prove that a particular item of property is in fact proceeds of crime. Establishing that proof is a lengthy and painstaking process. Our proposed amendment to reverse the burden of proof will further enhance the claim that crime does not pay

It was the Quebec justice minister who wrote this in the large dailies in Quebec.

So there is evidently a broad consensus now. I can see it in this House as well as in Quebec society. While still complying with the human rights charters, the burden of proof is being reversed for criminals who have been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The balance of probabilities is also extremely important. Ordinary citizens are not happy that criminals famous for their illegally acquired riches can avoid their responsibilities because no tax is paid on what is not declared.

One of the aberrations to which this has led is the fact that they have been entitled to legal aid in some trials. This leaves the public cynical.

With the adoption of this motion and the introduction of the following bill, we will help to reduce this cynicism and clear up the general climate in Quebec and Canada, and in the end, strengthen democracy—something that is wanted by everyone in this House.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette. His comments are always relevant and he is very eloquent when it comes time to defend the interests of Quebeckers. In this case, it is really the interests of Quebeckers that are at stake in every possible way. We are talking about the fight against organized crime. There is also the fact that the burden of proof is reversed and that the taxpayers should not have to pay to demonstrate that a criminal's assets are the proceeds of illegal criminal activities.

I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding RCMP detachments. Further to last week's unfortunate events in western Canada where four RCMP officers were killed by a drug dealer, how does he see the future of Joliette's detachment? Does he not feel that we should leave all those detachments open, including the one in Joliette?

I know that he is fighting hard for that. As he said earlier, he was responsible for setting up the Info-Crime committee in his region. It is a very dynamic committee that is proving successful in a difficult region. Where there is a lot of agricultural activity, there are also a lot of cannabis producers connected to biker gangs. What does he think about the reopening of the detachment in his riding?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. The reference he made to the four RCMP officers who were killed gives me an opportunity to extend my condolences to the families and the community that have suffered this loss. I think that we are all affected by it.

In my opinion, this incident shows how dangerous it is to weaken the network of RCMP detachments in the field.

Earlier, I heard my colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, rejoice over the fact that the detachment in Saint-Jérôme will remain open. I am happy for her. However, I believe that Joliette also is a regional capital and that the Lanaudière region would deserve to have the RCMP detachment in Joliette remain open.

The proposal made by RCMP management was to send the remaining officers—and very few remain—to Saint-Jérôme and Trois-Rivières. This will mean no RCMP officers in the Lanaudière region. I do not think that, without this physical presence, this region will be properly protected.

Also, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, we have corn plantations but also tobacco plantations. There are still a few. These provide excellent opportunities for squatting. This is an everyday reality.

I would like to stress one point. We are fighting here for the nine RCMP detachments to remain open not only in their present locations, but also with a sufficient number of officers. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies say that, on the Liberal side, they shared the same concern. The strength of the detachment in Joliette, which should normally have been at 12, and that is a minimum, was down to just two or three.

Little by little, the communities were being put in front of a fait accompli, just like this Parliament right now. The government has a responsibility to bring RCMP management back into line.

I could quote testimonies from school principals, even private school principals, saying that, with the RCMP gone, drug trafficking in school yards, in high school, will increase dramatically because they have neither the means nor the expertise to control that. There is a serious storm brewing.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleagues who spoke before me, particularly my colleague from Joliette, for his most relevant presentation that has us thinking about what we should have done much earlier. Fortunately, members opposite have come to see things the way we do. Out of necessity, a bill has been introduced and, in the current circumstances, it is a quite courageous one. Indeed, it involves a lot of fear—certainly not on the part of the members who are here and who make statements, but in the population—and we understand that.

Here is what I am getting at, my question for my colleague. I know his experience with administrative tribunals is quite considerable; they are not in the same category as criminal tribunals, but still. I am referring to the whole concept of the burden of proof.

It is common knowledge that, concerning an individual who owns property that has been acquired through crime, the facts must be proven. This is the step where the difficulty comes up, especially when one must bring in witnesses. There is a whole climate of fear that exists.

I would like him to come back to the concept of the burden of proof and what that entails for the Crown, to facilitate its work.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Chambly, who also has great experience with administrative tribunals. We used to run into each other at the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

His speech leads me to draw a parallel. It is not the same thing, but it has to do with fear.

In Quebec, during the process of accrediting a union, we know full well that employees can be threatened by the employer, as we saw recently in the Wal-Mart case. That is why when a union submits enough cards, it is presumed that the majority of employees are in favour of the union. We know that the accreditation system requires 50% plus one, which, in a democracy, is entirely normal. Accordingly, if the labour relations board finds that the cards are valid, accreditation is given without a vote.

In the rest of Canada, most of the provincial jurisdictions have an accreditation method whereby, even though cards are submitted, a vote is held if it is not clear that there is a majority of cards plus one. This gives the employer the chance to threaten employees on accreditation before a vote is held. In a way, in the Quebec accreditation model, we have reversed the burden of proof. It is up to the employer—who has the upper hand—to demonstrate that it is not true that the majority of employees want to unionize or not.

I find what the hon. member for Chambly is suggesting interesting. It is the exact same thing here. Those who have the information and who have the upper hand, are the criminals. We are reversing the burden of proof to have them tell us how they acquired their financial assets or property when the income they declared over the years simply does not correspond to their wealth.

In a way, Quebec's approach of reversing the burden of proof is reflected in the motion and the bill.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to go back to the issue of RCMP detachments, because in the riding that I represent, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, there used to be an RCMP detachment manned by one RCMP officer. However, it has already been a year and a half since the detachment was closed in the Madgalen Islands. In light of the decision made against RCMP authorities and the way the government is reacting to this whole issue, I have something to tell the House.

When it is difficult to gather evidence and when we are losing resources that would help gather such evidence, we can see the point made by the hon. member for Joliette. Indeed, in a situation such as that one, what we are proposing today is very relevant and would ensure that we do not add to the difficulty that we already have in terms of tracking down these criminals, and particularly their activities.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. I think he just demonstrated the aberration of the decision made by RCMP authorities.

Anyone who looks at a geographical map realizes that an RCMP detachment is necessary in the Magdalen Islands. Indeed, we are several hours away from the continent by ferry and access by air is not easy either.

It is really a bureaucratic decision that was made, without any consultations whatsoever. That decision was made unbeknownst to Parliament and in a cavalier fashion. I can relate my own personal experience. I had phoned Mr. Bourduas to make an appointment with him. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had told me that no decision would be made. I was supposed to meet him on the Friday, but the closure of the nine RCMP detachments was announced on the Wednesday.

There were no consultations and the decision was made without a real knowledge of the situation. This is an arrogant and truly bureaucratic decision.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince Albert, Equalization Program; the hon. member for Charleswood--St. James—Assiniboia, Health.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and the constituents of Winnipeg Centre, I am happy to share our views on the opposition motion put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles with regard to what I believe is a very creative and innovative idea to amend the Criminal Code to allow the government to seize the proceeds of crime in a more readily available way.

If I understand the motion correctly, it is to reverse the onus on the persons who we believe have benefited from crime to demonstrate that they acquired those assets through some honest means and not criminal activity.

I am enthused about that idea because I represent an inner city riding, the riding of Winnipeg Centre, where crime and safety are top of mind in virtually every citizen that I poll and survey on this subject. Like many members of Parliament, I frequently canvass and survey the views of the people who live in my riding. By a factor of three to one, the top of mind issues that they cite are crime and safety. Even health care and education rank way down the list. The people in my riding are irritated by the obvious outward demonstration of wealth by people they know full well are involved in some type of criminal activity. They are frustrated by the fact that law enforcement officers seem unable to do anything about it.

It is time we revisited this idea of the burden of proof. If the proposal put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles gives better tools to law enforcement officers to actually bring justice in these situations, then I am all for it.

Under the category of great minds think alike, I thought members would be interested to know that the province of Manitoba recently implemented such measures as part of its anti-gang program. We believe it now has the strongest anti-gang legislation anywhere in the country and legislation that is very similar to what has been put forward by my Bloc Québécois colleague.

I thought members may be interested in knowing a bit more about this recent legislation. I believe this new law came into full force on December 11, 2004 , which is what we in Manitoba call the criminal property forfeiture act. The whole idea of the law in Manitoba and the proposal by my Bloc colleague is to take the profit out of crime and make it less profitable. The secondary effect would be that criminals would not be able to use the proceeds of crime for more criminal activity.

If we make it easier to give the civil law process the tool to seize and freeze the proceeds of unlawful activity and have them forfeited, then not only does the message get sent that it is not that easy to enjoy the proceeds of crime, but people will not be able to keep the proceeds of crime and will not be able to use these proceeds to commit further crimes, as in the case of grow ops or property used for them. I think it makes eminently good sense.

Another twist to the Manitoba legislation is that the money reaped from the sale of seized properties and assets will be dedicated to the anti-gang program, which includes money for police officers and for various other measures to make our communities safer.

Every police force in the country is strapped for resources. One of the most compelling interviews in the days following the terrible tragedy in Alberta was listening to how quick four RCMP officers said that they could have used more police officers on duty that day and more backup had the resources been available. That is a common complaint from every municipal, provincial and federal police force in the country. They do not have the resources to keep up with the swelling tide of criminal activity.

What is being put forward today is a revenue stream. Under the Criminal Code we already have a way to forfeit the proceeds of crime after a conviction has taken place but only under specific circumstances. That fund is useful because it gets divided up among the provinces to be used for law enforcement.

In the Manitoba legislation, which is very bold, no such conviction has to take place. Manitoba reversed the onus on to the people who are involved in a criminal activity to prove that they bought a property, a car, a ring, or grow op drug paraphernalia through a legitimate stream of income. It is a very stringent burden of proof.

I think Manitoba's legislation is the toughest legislation anywhere in Canada. It was challenged in very aggressive ways by the opposition Conservative Party in Manitoba. Ironically, that party protested and objected because it felt that innocent people could end up having their property seized. I can assure the House that the legislation was examined with a fine tooth comb to make sure it stood up to any charter challenges about individual rights being violated by this groundbreaking legislation.

I think the House would be interested in a real life scenario that has occurred since the Manitoba legislation became law.

A well-known member of a large outlaw motorcycle gang, who shall remain nameless, was living with his wife in a Winnipeg suburb in a brand new $375,000 home purchased last year. No mortgage was registered on the home. The title was registered in his name and his wife's name. Neither he nor his wife had filed an income tax return in over five years. A luxury car, a motorcycle and a boat were parked in the driveway, all of which were registered in the name of a corporation of which he is a director.

The chief of police for the city of Winnipeg obtained an order under the new legislation which allowed him to seize the vehicles and to place a notice at the land title's office about the property. He went to court and satisfied the judge that the man was more likely than not a member of a criminal organization, in this case, a motorcycle gang. The man could not demonstrate where the money had come from to buy any of the items and he could not show any legitimate sources of income. As a result, the properties were forfeited to the government.

The court also did not accept that the man's spouse had any source of income and in fact ruled that the property was likely obtained through crime and no one could demonstrate otherwise. As a result, the government sold the property, subtracted it and the police expenses from that amount, and the remaining money was handed over to legal aid.

That was a revenue stream and it would not have been possible without Manitoba's groundbreaking legislation. That was a graphic illustration of how the idea put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois could work on a national level.

I wanted to speak to the motion today because I am very proud that Manitoba has taken tough action against organized crime in this way. What used to drive people crazy was that these guys could actually flaunt it. They could rub our noses in the fact that they were making thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, a year from criminal activity. As we know, selling illegal drugs yields enormous windfall profits. The police, who are bound by this burden of proof under the current Criminal Code, cannot act even though they know full well that these guys get their money through selling dope.

We could stop people on the Sparks Street mall and ask them whether they would like police officers to be able to actually act on what they know to be true instead of being held back by this burden of proof under the Criminal Code which, by necessity, has to be very stringent. I am sure they would agree to shifting the onus on the criminals to prove they did not buy their house with the proceeds of crime. It is just common sense.

I suppose there may be some bleeding hearts who would say that it may infringe upon private rights but I do not accept that. I think we have gone beyond that in terms of the scope of the problem. Naturally it has to be able to survive charter challenges, as my colleague across the way said. I am looking forward to the first charter challenge on the Manitoba legislation because this has been developed by authorities and constitutional experts across our province and, believe me, it would not have been introduced if we had thought it would fall as soon as it was put in place.

We look at similar legislation in other jurisdictions that has had a net effect. Perhaps the best bonus is not just the revenue stream that we could tap into, but the fact that it drives criminals away from those jurisdictions.

The criminal assets bureau in Ireland, for instance, has reported that a large number of high level criminals have left Ireland as a result of the vigorous pursuit of the forfeiture of the crime related assets. Ireland's legislation seizes crime related assets to such a degree that it is not all that profitable to commit those crimes in Ireland so they leave. What could be better? They drove the snakes out of Ireland and now maybe they are driving the drug dealers out of Ireland.

The office of Nassau county and the district attorney in New York report that certain illegal businesses have been driven out by attacking them through the state's forfeiture laws. For example, so-called legitimate businesses that are fronts for other illegal businesses, such as gambling and prostitution specifically, have been driven out of the state of New York and Nassau county because of their rigid forfeiture laws that reverse the onus in that situation as well. This particular district attorney points out that the forfeiture of luxury cars owned and flaunted by drug traffickers has had a positive impact on the neighbours particularly affected by drugs.

In the state of New Jersey, the department of law and public safety reports that a number of traditional organized crime families in that state have been decimated. Their legs have been cut out from underneath them because they have not only taken away their luxury toys, they have taken away their ability and their resources to commit more crimes.

I should point out that in Manitoba we can seize a luxury car, a house, the property, jewellery or a boxful of cash if the person cannot demonstrate where he or she got the boxful of cash. Criminals saying that they found it on a street corner probably would not pass the test of any judge in the province of Manitoba. We are ganging up on gangs is what it is.

We saw Quebec, and Montreal specifically, suffer through gang wars. Quebecers would not tolerate it any more and called for firm action. They called for an iron fist in dealing with organized crime, and specifically motorcycle gangs. We are in the same boat and we are not going to tolerate it. Nobody is going to pussyfoot around on this issue.

I would point out again that the purpose of our legislation in Manitoba is to make crime, particularly organized crime, less profitable and more difficult to commit by confiscating the property obtained through the breaking of law. Unlawful activity covered by the legislation includes any provincial or federal offence, as well as similar offences from jurisdictions outside of Canada.

I should also point out that no conviction is required. This is a civil court proceeding in which the court must be satisfied that the origins or the intended use of the property is more likely than not to be illegal. If the property has been obtained through illegal activity or it is about to be used for an illegal purpose, we will take it away, sell it and use the money to put more police on the street to catch more people. That is common sense.

This is the fun thing about being in government. If people have any courage, they can do that kind of thing. If they do not have any courage, they just stay in government forever like the Liberals and do not in fact ever do anything that really has a meaningful effect on the safety of our citizens.

Just to clearly differentiate this from the Criminal Code activities that can also seize property and sell it, in this case the judge cannot and need not find anyone guilty of any offence in the seizing of this property. Really, I think it is fascinating. Property owned and possessed by members of criminal organizations or by a corporation in which a criminal organization member plays a key role, in other words, the clubhouse of the bike gang in this case, is presumed to be obtained through unlawful activity unless the owner can prove it was obtained through legitimate means.

How is that for cleaning up a bike gang clubhouse in a residential neighbourhood? Instead of having to drive by it year after year knowing full well that illegal activity is taking place and knowing full well it was built, bought and paid for by the proceeds of illegal activity, now we can just seize it and put the burden of proof on them to prove to us that it was purchased through legitimate means.

Any chief of police, under our legislation, which includes the commanding officer of the RCMP, may apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for orders to seize and forfeit or confiscate property that is either the proceeds or an instrument of the illegal activity. This is revolutionary. This is very bold legislation.

The Manitoba government becomes the owner of the property at that time and it then must sell the property and must use the money for crime prevention initiatives. There is a specific designated use mandatory in this legislation. It cannot just go into general revenue and pay for health care or anything else. It has to go to crime prevention. This is why it has been so enthusiastically greeted by the citizens of Manitoba. Those who wanted more money spent specifically on crime prevention now have the avenue of a revenue stream they can look forward to other than a tax increase.

The money can be used for these specific purposes: for crime prevention initiatives or to assist victims or to fund legal aid in the provinces. Victim compensation is another whole chapter of Manitoba justice that we have recently expanded greatly. It came to our attention that victims are often left out of the criminal justice system completely, especially when it comes to compensation.

Certainly I am very proud of what we are doing in the province of Manitoba. I am very heartened and enthused by the proposal put forward to us by the Bloc Québécois through their opposition day motion. I encourage the federal government to examine very carefully what we have done in Manitoba and to expand this throughout Canada as far as it is jurisdictionally allowed to, or at least take steps to encourage provinces to undertake a model like the Manitoba model.

We are proud of it. Everybody here wants to stamp out crime. Here is a good viable way to take a step in that direction.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of reports by committees, so that I can table the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.